Montenegro’s proposed Korita wind farm has secured a connection agreement with national transmission system operator CGES, but the project remains without a construction permit after the government rejected the developer’s first application only five days before the grid contract was announced.
The sequence exposes a familiar weakness in renewable-energy development: grid access, environmental approval and construction permitting are progressing on separate administrative tracks, even though each depends on the others. For an 88 MW project valued at €132 million, the resulting timing gap is more than a procedural inconvenience. It affects the technical design, development schedule, financing conditions and credibility of the planned 2030 commissioning date.
The Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property rejected the application submitted by Vjetro park Korita DOO for the first phase of the wind farm in the municipality of Bijelo Polje. The decision was adopted on 18 June 2026 and signed by minister Slaven Radunović.
On 23 June, CGES announced that it had signed an agreement with the same developer to connect an 88 MW wind farm to Montenegro’s transmission network. The project’s estimated investment value was presented as €132 million, equivalent to approximately €1.5 million per installed megawatt.
The connection agreement removes one of the obstacles identified during the permit procedure, but it does not reverse the ministry’s earlier decision. Nor does it constitute permission to begin construction. The developer must still regularise the construction-permit process, either through a new or amended application or through an administrative challenge before Montenegro’s Administrative Court.
The project company originally applied for the construction permit at the end of December 2025, submitting additional documentation in January and March 2026. The application covered the first phase of the wind farm on land within the Korita cadastral municipality.
The supporting package included the main design, a design-review report, property records, an extract from the digital cadastral plan and approvals and opinions from relevant public authorities. It also included a decision by Montenegro’s Environmental Protection Agency approving the environmental impact assessment for a wind facility with total installed capacity of 72.60 MW.
The ministry nevertheless concluded that the application did not satisfy the statutory conditions because CGES had not approved the main design. During the administrative procedure, the transmission operator informed the ministry that it could not issue consent for the wind farm’s infrastructure complex and planned 35/400 kV substation because the investor had not yet signed a transmission-network connection agreement.
That connection agreement became available five days after the construction permit was rejected.
The timing highlights the circular dependency that can emerge in large energy projects. The construction authority required CGES approval of the main design. CGES, in turn, required a completed connection process before giving that approval. The developer submitted its permit application while the connection conditions were still being reassessed, leaving a missing document at the point when the ministry had to decide the case.
There was also a material change in the project’s planned capacity. CGES had previously completed a connection analysis for 72.60 MW, matching the capacity covered by the environmental approval. In November 2025, however, the developer applied for a new analysis after deciding to increase the wind farm to 88 MW.
The revised configuration represents an increase of 15.40 MW, or approximately 21.2 per cent, compared with the project assessed under the earlier environmental and grid documentation. CGES said the new connection analysis was still being prepared during the construction-permit procedure, preventing it from approving the submitted technical documents.
This capacity change may now become the project’s next permitting issue. The connection agreement refers to 88 MW, while the environmental approval submitted with the construction application covers 72.60 MW. The developer will need to demonstrate that the environmental assessment, spatial basis, turbine layout, access roads, internal cable system, substation design and grid studies remain valid for the larger project or obtain the necessary amendments and supplementary approvals.
An increase of more than one-fifth in installed capacity can affect turbine numbers or ratings, foundation loads, transport requirements, noise and shadow-flicker calculations, bird and bat studies, landscape impact, electrical losses and reactive-power capability. It also changes the expected production profile and the maximum injection assessed by CGES.
The planned 35/400 kV substation suggests that Korita is being designed for direct connection at the highest level of Montenegro’s transmission network. That increases the importance of detailed grid-compliance studies covering voltage control, frequency response, fault ride-through, active-power regulation, protection coordination and SCADA communication with CGES.
The connection agreement is therefore an essential development milestone, but its bankability depends on the obligations attached to it. Lenders will need clarity on the connection point, allocation of construction costs, responsibility for the substation and transmission works, completion deadlines, financial guarantees, energisation conditions and consequences of delay by either the developer or CGES.
At €132 million, Korita is large enough to require a structured project-finance package or substantial sponsor equity during development and construction. A conventional financing structure could involve approximately 65–75 per cent senior debt, implying potential borrowing of roughly €86 million to €99 million, with the balance funded through equity and subordinated capital. The final leverage will depend on the wind resource, contracted revenues, merchant-price exposure, construction risk and the firmness of the grid timetable.
The estimated €1.5 million per MW investment intensity is credible for a large onshore wind project but leaves limited room for uncontrolled scope growth. Mountainous terrain, road construction, turbine transport, geotechnical conditions and a 400 kV connection could push costs above the headline estimate. Interest during construction and delay-related costs would add further pressure if the permitting sequence prevents financial close or notice to proceed.
A delay of 12–18 months between the original development schedule and construction readiness could increase the financing envelope through additional development expenditure, extension of supplier commitments, refreshed studies and higher interest during construction. It could also expose the project to changes in turbine pricing, grid-code requirements and commercial market conditions before the planned 2030 start of operations.
The ministry had already signalled its concerns before issuing the rejection. On 24 March 2026, it informed Vjetro park Korita of the results of the administrative examination and its intention to refuse the permit. The company was given five days to provide a written response but did not submit an observation within that period.
That failure removed an opportunity to explain the pending CGES process, request additional time or clarify when the new connection analysis and agreement would be completed. For a project of this scale, administrative correspondence and deadline management form part of the development risk that lenders and equity investors will examine during due diligence.
The subsequent connection agreement creates a stronger basis for a renewed application, provided CGES can now approve the revised main design. The developer will also need to align the different capacity references across the complete documentation set. A permit package that continues to combine an 88 MW grid agreement with a 72.60 MW environmental approval would leave an obvious compliance gap unless the competent authorities formally confirm that the existing environmental decision remains sufficient.
The project’s technical and legal critical path now runs through harmonisation rather than simple document collection. The grid analysis, connection agreement, environmental approval, main design, design review, property rights and construction application must all describe the same project configuration. Any inconsistency in turbine capacity, substation parameters, land coverage or connection facilities could generate another round of requests for supplementation.
The ministry’s rejection does not establish that Korita cannot be built. It shows that the project was submitted for construction approval before the grid-connection process and revised capacity had been fully incorporated into its technical documentation. CGES’s agreement addresses the immediate reason that consent was withheld but cannot retroactively transform the rejected application into an approved permit.
Korita’s 2030 commissioning target remains achievable, but the buffer is beginning to narrow. Wind-resource confirmation, financing, turbine procurement, road and foundation works, construction of the 35/400 kV substation, CGES compliance testing and trial operation must still follow the completion of permitting. The next application will need to present the 88 MW project as one integrated and internally consistent investment rather than as an expanded project relying on approvals prepared for its earlier 72.60 MW configuration.
